TED Entertainment Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber, Morgan Kamal Majed, and Kasey Caviness, California 2:25-cv-5564, 2:25-cv-5565,Missouri 4:25-cv-459 - Ethan Klein Suing three women and 10 redditors for Copyright Infringement.

[gaba pentin3493]

That's what I was wondering. This ruling seems to imply that you could go get a bipolar homeless man wearing a sandwich board that says "ask about my alien abduction", have him just ramble while a video plays and that is somehow appropriately transformative.

That "runtime" is more important "content."

Why do people keep saying this without having actually watched the reaction video? I feel like if you watched the video you would think it was fine. Compare it to any other react content you would consider transformative, or honestly anyone else that reacted to the nuke.

 

[Semen_Recycler]

I dislike everyone involved, but I have a special hatred for the plague of litigious kikes who try to censor criticism with claims of antisemitism. Get fucked, Ethan. W chinkoid judge.

Why do people keep saying this without having actually watched the reaction video? I feel like if you watched the video you would think it was fine. Compare it to any other react content you would consider transformative, or honestly anyone else that reacted to the nuke.

I can’t blame people for not wanting to sit through 4 hours of Denims. But yeah, everyone framing her reaction this way clearly didn’t even watch it. Or they’re just so hopped up on copium that they’ve become delirious.

 

[Terrifik]

more info

Opublikuj w wątku „TED Entertainment Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber, Morgan Kamal Majed, and Kasey Caviness, California 2:25-cv-5564, 2:25-cv-5565,Missouri 4:25-cv-459"

5 Cze 2026

Sweet sweet victory

https://x.com/i/status/2063071232636092611

---

Turk roach from behind for the assist

https://x.com/Awk20000/status/2063036061308317781?s=20

Hasan calls out Ethan Klein and everyone else (Asmongold, xQc, etc) who championed against Denims in his lawsuit, hopes MoistCr1TiKaL and Philip DeFranco cover the situation

"This is Israeli mindset..not shocking to me his lawyer is a West Bank settler, not shocking that Ethan Klein loves Israel..u think u get to have a say in how ppl transform ur content, are u f'in stupid?"

"A lot of our...

• Terrifik

Reakcje: x 7 x 2 x 1

https://x.com/Awk20000/status/2063393447789391911

Denims provides an update on her tentative victory in court over Ethan Klein

“A big reason why tentative rulings are so important is bc it’s very rare that they are changed..not impossible..your lawyer would have to provide a lot of evidence to convince the judge not to rule that way”

“We still have to wait anywhere from 2 days to 2 months for the judge to officially publish a final ruling..Ethan could potentially still appeal”

“There is technically still the other case..the countdown episode before the content nuke”

“It’s not over till it’s over..but this is very very very good news”

3:51

..

https://x.com/hasanthehun/status/2063383811669532727

 

[Ghostse]

Some excerpts. Pretty damning for Ethan.

Factor 1: Purpose and character of the use
a) Transformative nature
Wyświetl załącznik 9102420
Wyświetl załącznik 9102425
Wyświetl załącznik 9102523

Wyświetl załącznik 9102426
Wyświetl załącznik 9102428
Wyświetl załącznik 9102433

b) Commercial use
Wyświetl załącznik 9102435

Factor 2: Nature of the copyrighted work
Wyświetl załącznik 9102437
Wyświetl załącznik 9102485
Wyświetl załącznik 9102496
Wyświetl załącznik 9102492

Factor 3: Amount and substantiality of the portion in relation to the whole
Wyświetl załącznik 9102453
Wyświetl załącznik 9102456

Factor 4: Effect of the use on the potential market
Wyświetl załącznik 9102459
Wyświetl załącznik 9102461
Wyświetl załącznik 9102463
Wyświetl załącznik 9102464

Conclusion
Wyświetl załącznik 9102550
Wyświetl załącznik 9102551

W Denims

So per this, I can now stream Song of the South so long as I pause and offer my commentary about Uncle Remus' shucking and jicing.

Just steal a screener DVD meant for critics and put it on YouTube the day the movie comes out. Grunt unintelligibly every 20 minutes or so. Maybe just say "this sucks." That's now "fair use."

Sounds reasonable to me.

I think the copywrite system is gay and retarded too but this is frankly one of those issues where the bad law not being applied equally and fairly makes the bad law worse.

If you did this with a disney movie the lawyers would get to rape you. Every fucking gun on the planet would turn and obliterate your ass from existence. You would die like a hamster in all conceivable realities; and as the sum of all your parts moved as one to the next trichiliocosm, a great shadow in the shape of a mouse on the Trisāhasramahāsāhasra. would stuff your soul into one of those sea cucumbers whose anus shoots out whenever it's scared. That's how raped you would get. Prolapse-SeaCucumber-Gigaraped.

Something like half of the Mystery Science theatre movies are still locked down because in a not-to-distant-future they still fear the Thousand-Millionfold-Assrape Trisa-hamster-whatever that word was. But that's because the judge knows if she tried to step to Disney or Warner she'd be ejecting sea cucumber anuses with the rest of us.

Do I care for the fate of Lex Jewthor and his Savage Snifflers? Not really. But would it be funny to watch the last crumbs of breadtube get put through whatever the fuck I typed two paragraphs ago? Absolutely. Ergo I am sad.

Exactly this; if this was a win for free use I'd just be laughing at the jews.
But its not. Its only a win for retarded react streamers. There is 0% chance I can use this argument to stream the latest capeshit, or turn myself in an NFL commentator.

Everyone making comparisons with disney movies or ripping an NFL game simply missed most of the ruling. If you watch someone's stream to see his take on football game, play by play, that's completely different from just watching someone say a few words here and there which would actually provide a substitute for the real NFL game. Look at the timeline of the stream too. No one was watching 2h of additional Denim's commentary just to watch the content nuke. At some point if you want to criticize an entire video, you have to play the entire video. Idk how 2h of commentary (not breaks) is not enough for a 1h40min video.

Disagree. If it had just been her "reacting" to the stream with audio it'd be one thing, but she had the streaming going as she was reacting to it. (additional stuff about intent but fuck copyright so w/e)

 

[Unimaginative Username]

So per this, I can now stream Song of the South so long as I pause and offer my commentary about Uncle Remus' shucking and jicing.

Judge Chinkazoid seems to think that adding remarks that will increase anti-Semitism is somehow sufficiently transformative, but I doubt he'd feel that repeatedly saying "ching chong, ping pong" over a Chinese video would be in any way transformative no matter how much it increases anti-Chinese sentiment in the viewers. The judge is clearly just planning to rule based on his poltical sympathies instead of the law and I have no doubts Ethan will win on appeal.

 

[SoyBoyCaliphate]

Judge Chinkazoid seems to think that adding remarks that will increase anti-Semitism is somehow sufficiently transformative, but I doubt he'd feel that repeatedly saying "ching chong, ping pong" over a Chinese video would be in any way transformative no matter how much it increases anti-Chinese sentiment in the viewers. The judge is clearly just planning to rule based on his poltical sympathies instead of the law and I have no doubts Ethan will win on appeal.

No, he just took Ethan's exact words to say that even if we take what ethan said at face value, it is still fair use. You can disagree with the conclusion but you fundamentally misunderstood what the judge was saying. Remember this type of motion involves assuming everything the plaintiff said is true, and any disputed claim from the defendant as false. It obviously didn't say that Denims was antisemetic, it's just what Ethan claims (and it backfired on his retarded ass, since he tried to make his lawsuit a platform for his jewish hysterics even if it is completely irrelevant. He also brought up hasan everywhere in a copyright lawsuit lmfao)

So per this, I can now stream Song of the South so long as I pause and offer my commentary about Uncle Remus' shucking and jicing.

Honestly have you read the ruling? Because no, that's not what it says or even implies. It's so weird the fixation with pausing that I see in reaction to this lawsuit. And your NFL example wouldn't work because again, the ruling discusses the difference between having to show more "factual" (as opposed to creative) copyrighted material to address its claims directly to your audience. Basically, to address an outwardly factual video, you usually need to be able to show said video in its entirety. Just like an infographic has more reasons to be shared or displayed than some artist's painting. It's ridiculous to claim that people watching her stream were just trying to watch the content nuke, and used her stream to do that. Even ethan hasn't made that claim in the lawsuit afaik, in dact he said rhe opposite.

It also seems like a lot of posts here conflate what would a platform's own content policy would do (YouTube has contentid and copyright claims, and is stricter than the law itself), versus what the law allows. If ethan would've used twitch's copyright flagging system it would have probably taken the video down ( maybe not, she added 2h of actual commentary). But going through the legal system is different.

Also his lawyer was dogshit lol. Bht the ruling is very precise and makes it super clear that all the "ok so now i can just show marvel movies if I pause or leave for 30mins!" just comes from misunderstanding, not reading, or disliking the ruling because of assumptions made before even reading it. You can disagree with the ruling but not because it is supposedly the equivalent to declaring that streaming an NFL game could be fair use.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

t not because it is supposedly the equivalent to declaring that streaming an NFL game could be fair use.

The entire opinion rides on the assumption that the quality of the reaction has no impact on its transformative value.
It also makes the assumption that you need to react to the entirety, but does not require that you also ADDRESS the entirety.

If Denims had clipped the thing and only addressed the parts where she thought she had a good argument or opinion, and left out the rest where the HasanWiki of Antisemitic Talking points has no entry yet, we would never have gotten here.

In my view it makes no sense to allow use of the entire thing, with explicit malicious intent of financial harm.
In my opinion the fact that the reaction was LIVE, and she did not get to pre-watch to prepare notes and talking points to transform it during her stream, should have automatically precluded it from fair use.

 

[Ghostse]

Judge Chinkazoid seems to think that adding remarks that will increase anti-Semitism is somehow sufficiently transformative, but I doubt he'd feel that repeatedly saying "ching chong, ping pong" over a Chinese video would be in any way transformative no matter how much it increases anti-Chinese sentiment in the viewers. The judge is clearly just planning to rule based on his poltical sympathies instead of the law and I have no doubts Ethan will win on appeal.

Ok. So I have to use my Song of the South commentary to increase hatred of blacks.
Uncle Remus is very likeable so I've got my work cut out for me, but challenge accepted.

It's ridiculous to claim that people watching her stream were just trying to watch the content nuke, and used her stream to do that.

Except that is exactly what was going on, and what the stream link Demins advertised on reddit said was the goal.

You can disagree with the ruling but not because it is supposedly the equivalent to declaring that streaming an NFL game could be fair use.

I pause after every tackle to show TBI stats and complain about niggers with too much money from sportsball ruining everything, adding 2 hours of my own commentary.
I'm now completely legal.

 

[SoyBoyCaliphate]

Ok. So I have to use my Song of the South commentary to increase hatred of blacks.
Uncle Remus is very likeable so I've got my work cut out for me, but challenge accepted.


Except that is exactly what was going on, and what the stream link Demins advertised on reddit said was the goal.


I pause after every tackle to show TBI stats and complain about niggers with too much money from sportsball ruining everything, adding 2 hours of my own commentary.
I'm now completely legal.

I'm not trying to get into a big debate about this but surely you agree that this ruling hasn't changed or set any precedent right? Like it might not be something you agree with, but it doesn't somehow make it okay suddenly to stream nfl games with fake minimal commentary?

And I think what she said is irrelevant, what matters is that the audience can't be argued to be the same. You don't watch denims to watch the content nuke, that's, in essence, what the judge kept saying. Again, this is all coming from the plaintiff, what Ethan kept rambling about made it clear that they had different audiences, that denims audience was there for her take on the nuke, etc.

If we were to go by what each side said, Ethan also said multiple times thay he created the Nuke (factual content, so treated like a documentary) that attacked denims and others as bait.

Asauming she did say that (not sure she did, for the nuke), I don't see how that's worse than openly stating to have created the Nuke to make allegations against those streamers, knowing that any reasonable person would make a response video so that he can try to ruin them for unrelated disputes. He even begged hasan to do it too.

You might say that the reason why he created the content is irrelevant, the fact is that they still reacted to it is all what matters for the court but that's exactly the point. That's also why doesn't matter if shes said that she was trying to steal his views. If the way she used it was fair use, intent does not matter.

And to be honest for your two examples, yes you would probably be fine if you were to get sued and not give up throughout the lawsuit. But it usually does not get to that point. You would get raped by every platforms content ID/dmca takedowns as they always have a biais towards whoever is claiming copyright. But Ethan is a sociopathic psycho who wanted to gamble and go directly for the legal route, for reasons completely unrelated to the content itself.

No reasonable party would have ever escalated this type of supposed infringement the way ethan has so it is not even a useful discussion. You don't see this type of cases often because copyright owners are usually rational parties.

As a reminder here is how much he wanted people to watch and react to the video, he almost broke down when hasan still didn't fall for the bait. He kept asking for them to watch the video on stream. Come on! Keep in mind this was something denims wanted to lean on during trial but wasn't even part of the MJOP. (Sidenote but I only started watching h3 clips again a 1-2months ago, after an 8year break, and wow this dude is sick in the head)

0:08

 

[MrMM]

The judge is clearly just planning to rule based on his poltical sympathies instead of the law and I have no doubts Ethan will win on appeal.

Assuming the tentative ruling goes through, I stand by my prior statements that it will probably result in a non-precedential Ninth Circuit affirmance. Although the rise of the internet/westlaw/etc have blurred the lines between precedential published opinions and nonprecedential, the concept still holds.

Only 8% of Ninth Circuit opinions are precedential. And only ~13% of federal civil appeals result in reversal. (And not every bad ruling gets appealed because of the cost barrier!)

What this results in is an appellate system that *doesn't have to care about getting things right*. And that largely *just adopts whatever the lower court ruled*

They choose which cases to publish and make precedential. So appellate courts can shrug and say to themselves "meh, maybe we didn't get this one right, so lets not officially publish it and leave it non-precedential".

People expecting the Ninth Circuit to save Ethan are coping. The Ninth Circuit can *affirm* this ruling with no true precedential value. (Future cases can and will cite it, but a district could judge would not be bound to follow it -- and certainly won't, for everyone's NFL/Disney hypotheticals)

Appellate courts in the U.S. are essentially like gambling. You have no idea what you are going to get, but you sink a chunk of change into that 10% hope.

(and it backfired on his retarded ass, since he tried to make his lawsuit a platform for his jewish hysterics even if it is completely irrelevant. He also brought up hasan everywhere in a copyright lawsuit lmfao)

This is correct. Ethan's political sperg in his complaint was entirely self-destructive. How many pages were wasted on things irrelevant to infringement and instead solely there to stroke Ethan's ego?

While I disagree, legally, that it should have any bearing on the fair use analysis, it clearly influenced the Judge's tendencies. Complaints often are cluttered with irrelevant allegations but it is clear that here Ethan dug his own grave. It was unnecessary, distracting, and only served to hurt his legal case, if anything, by showing Ethan cared more about what Denims said than her actual infringement.

One should never discount a judge's openness to being legally wrong but, in the judge's view, morally correct (e.g. protecting the less-monied party from vexatious litigation). It happens often, and as discussed above, reversals are rare, and so it often ends just as that.

Also his lawyer was dogshit lol

This is also correct. Rom Bar Nissim is not a particularly good attorney. He clearly is not competent at navigating federal cases to completion with thoughtfulness and expertise.

Rom's background is he graduated from USC Law, which today places grads reasonably well, but was not worth talking about when he graduated back in 2013, as the legal market has changed tremendously in the last decade. Although 2013 was a tough time to graduate from law school -- the market was down -- this dude's first job out of law school was working for just two months at the "Law Offices of Doug Levinson" before fleeing back to USC to do some kind of stipend based gig as a research assistant. He then: spent two months at a small firm "Bostwick Law"; four months at some TV station (potentially limited contract work); a half year unemployed; five months at another small law shop "Freundlich law" before landing a long-ish term position as an associate at a low-ranked biglaw firm in a satellite office; and then going back to small law before opening his own shop.

To be clear, it was *when Rom was at the (albeit low ranked) biglaw firm* that Ethan won his fair use case against Matt Hoss. I went and looked it up on PACER just now, other attorneys assisting Rom with the matter at the time include now-retired but former equity-partner and Fox Rothschild co-chair of Media, Defamation and Privacy Law Jeffrey Kravitz and another attorney Caroline Morgan, who seems to be doing just fine for herself.

In this case, Rom fucked up filings and exhibits. He was not sharp during the subpoena hearing, even though the judge still ruled in his favor. And while he probably can out-Fox (pun slightly intended from his former firm) Leah Vulic (never went to law school), it's clear he wasn't ready to appropriately advise Ethan to not sperg in his complaint, and lost on the papers against Frost (which is a reasonably decent mid-law shop in LA for what it is worth).

Is Rom as bad as, Ron Coleman? Lol probably not, even if Ron has a more pedigreed history of working for actual firms, his greatest fault is thinking he can wing shit and put minimal effort in. On the other hand, Rom seems to have tried his best, but his best was not enough. I will have to watch how his AI copyright cases go against big tech. But there can be a lot of money in getting big companies to settle class actions for shit they don't want to deal with.

 

[Ghostse]

If we were to go by what each side said, Ethan also said multiple times thay he created the Nuke (factual content, so treated like a documentary) that attacked denims and others as bait.

Asauming she did say that (not sure she did, for the nuke), I don't see how that's worse than openly stating to have created the Nuke to make allegations against those streamers, knowing that any reasonable person would make a response video so that he can try to ruin them for unrelated disputes. He even begged hasan to do it too.

If I leave my bike unlocked under a camera with the express purpose of catching thieves, someone stealing the bike has broken the law no matter how enticed they might be. They took something that didn't belong to them and they had no legal right to take, and are liable for arrest and prosecution for theft especially when the camera picks them up saying "I'm going to fucking steal this bike".

Ethan is representative of the ZOG but not law enforcement, so an entrapment defense doesn't work. A bunch of retards fell into the Jew's well, but they did so of their own accord. They broke the law, they simustreamed copyrighted content doing the same retarded shit they'd been doing for years, but Ethan set up a trap to ensure he could slam dunk them when they did it yet again.

The judge is monstrously retarded, and Ethan's lawyer is awful; I dunno how the ZOG's mouthpiece failed to get a competent lawyer, but its pretty lol.

It doesn't matter how many times I pause the Stealers vs. the Jet-blacks to offer my insightful commentary, advise how football is a waste of time that only enriches entitled niggers, I have still unlawfully restreamed copyrighted content. The fact the link my stream "Fuck the Nigger Foot League, don't give them views or revenue, click here!" pretty much removes any 'Aw shucks your honor I didn't know that I wasn't to have done that' defense I might be able to try to conjure up.
Or I guess should but this judge is massively retarded, nearly equaled by Ethan's lawyer.

tl;dr: I'd say "she's not going to fuck you bro" but actually with that wall approaching it is actually possible. But she would fuck you because you're paying her in giftcards, not because you defended her honor against the nefarious jew.

 

[SoyBoyCaliphate]

Is Rom as bad as, Ron Coleman? Lol probably not, even if Ron has a more pedigreed history of working for actual firms, his greatest fault is thinking he can wing shit and put minimal effort in

Wow, thanks for mentioning him, I guess i know what I'll be sperging out about this morning. What the fuck happened in that lawsuit ahahaha how did he fuck that up. Last time I heard about that lolsuit it was just starting and the plaintiff being a deranged troon... I thought it wasn't even interesting enough to follow. Why are bad lawyers so fascinating


And I think I agree it could be overturned if appealed but I still think that the ruling on its own is... fine. There's a weird narrative, mostly on X, that this ruling basically changed everything about copyright, or missed x or y. I don't think it did at all. That another judge could have decided differently, doesn't mean it's fundamentally flawed. It's just the gamble that ethan chose to make by going for a copyright trial in a case that isn't super clear cut.

 

[MrMM]

Why are bad lawyers so fascinating

Because society/media/culture has made lawyers into some kind of heralded class.

In reality, us lawyers are just trudging along, spending 80% of our time shaking our heads at what other lawyers have done in their own incompetence. And we are assholes, so we all judge the other lawyers based on their pedigree and experience.

Most lawyers suck. That's just the honest reality of it. But it's a janky system and so even bad lawyers win sometimes, and then they advertise on their wins -- not their losses (or badness).

It is funny that pop culture that idolized lawyers looks to Suits. For which the premise is some drugged out degenerate can wipe the floor with practicing attorneys if given the chance

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Most lawyers suck.

But Rom might just not have been up to the task here, but Ron Coleman is on a different level currently.

Guess I'll just watch Ethan appeal and lose again and hope Denims is properly financially ruined as punishment, even if she wins.

What the fuck happened in that lawsuit ahahaha how did he fuck that up.

Not doing the work required.
Malpratice, just like with Loomer.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

What effect does this have on the Reddit jannies? Toasted Roastie folded, Hijabba the Hutt defaulted, and Fishface had her prayers answered. If the underlying cases all get wrapped up and resolved, will the courts just take it as a good reason to toss that or at least put it on hold while any appeal for Denims is ongoing?

It would be a lie to say that her getting off isn't disappointing, but she's small fish compared to the Reddit jannies.

 

[MrMM]

What effect does this have on the Reddit jannies? Toasted Roastie folded, Hijabba the Hutt defaulted, and Fishface had her prayers answered. If the underlying cases all get wrapped up and resolved, will the courts just take it as a good reason to toss that or at least put it on hold while any appeal for Denims is ongoing?

It would be a lie to say that her getting off isn't disappointing, but she's small fish compared to the Reddit jannies.

There is a world where the Judge in Denims's case doesnt adopt the tentative order, and lets this proceed to discovery and a motion for summary judgement (but has since signaled where he thinks this will ultimately fall) -- which is probably more appropriate here than dismissing it on the pleadings, but who knows. I dont think we have gotten any accounts of what Rom said at the hearing friday -- if ethan appeals there will presumably be a transcript, but I have a suspicion Ethan is really second guessing his commitment to an appeal.

But if the order is entered it is a mess. The subpoena which the redditors failed to quash arose from the underlying Denims case. She consented (not sure that really matters, but whatever) to the subpoena and then it issued from her case. If her case falls away, as should the subpoena based upon her case that is currently up on appeal.

But Ethan *should* be able to pursue a different/separate subpoena arising from the Kaceytron or Frogan cases. As their fact patterns could result in a judge *not finding fair use*. But then we start all over again, and the Redditors will move to quash and we have the fight again, that may ultimately have to be appealed.

Again, falls on Rom's shit advice for pursuing the redditor subpoena out of the weakest case Ethan had. But so it goes!

 

[Potentially Criminal]

The judge is clearly just planning to rule based on his poltical sympathies instead of the law and I have no doubts Ethan will win on appeal.

I see nothing indicating political bias.

He made a ruling and interpretation based on the facts in front of him. I disagree, but that's how it goes.

 

[Trigger Me Timbers]

I see nothing indicating political bias.

He made a ruling and interpretation based on the facts in front of him. I disagree, but that's how it goes.

I need a lawyers take;

Will this impact Frogans lawsuit? Last I heard Ethan got a default judgement and now they need to discuss damages. But if Demins gets her win does that mean Frogan can some how pull up from her cases Nosedive?

 

[Air support]

I disagree, but that's how it goes.

Who appoints judges again? Law just seems like what people in charge want it to be.

 

[Thomas Talus]

This is correct. Ethan's political sperg in his complaint was entirely self-destructive. How many pages were wasted on things irrelevant to infringement and instead solely there to stroke Ethan's ego?

While I disagree, legally, that it should have any bearing on the fair use analysis, it clearly influenced the Judge's tendencies. Complaints often are cluttered with irrelevant allegations but it is clear that here Ethan dug his own grave. It was unnecessary, distracting, and only served to hurt his legal case, if anything, by showing Ethan cared more about what Denims said than her actual infringement.

I've said before, either in this thread or another, that complaints should be written as bloodlessly and dry as possible.

It's like talking to the police; the more you say, the more opportunities you have to mess up your story. So don't say more than you absolutely need to.